First Round Rookie Pay Scales Fair?

[Richfield]

Grant Hill correctly pointed out on NBA TV that Zion Williamson will be underpaid this season in comparison to his worth, the money he will bring in to the franchise.

Is it time for the NBAPA to re-evaluate this period that leaves future superstars underpaid for their first 3-4 years in the league while risking injury?

The NBA does a great job selling hype on their future stars. Shouldn't those players see more of that money, in addition to the consideration of their value on the court?

It's a pretty safe bet that Zion, and most first overall picks, will have more value than the typical MLE signing.

If guys like Fultz are the counter argument, shouldn't we be putting those bad decisions on the franchises that make them?

Every year the best player in the draft is worth more than the MLE, regardless of teams' ability to know who that guy is.

Left as is there will eventually be a day when the projected top pick's agent exclaims that the player will not report to any team that drafts him in the first round.

Likewise, guys that don't belong in the league and never really earn their rookie salaries are getting paid more than veteran journeymen that sign for the vets min but then go help a team win a championship.

Seems like there's still some work to be done on the salary particulars in the CBA.

[giberish]

Rookies are, on the whole, underpaid compared to their on-court production, but it's not by that much (it's way worse in baseball). Many young players really aren't that good. Even for guys who end up being very good players it often takes several years to transition from 'interesting' to 'actually helping their team win games'.

Obviously there is a big variation in the quality of individual young players (even after you adjust for draft position). I'm not sure how to really account for that. At worst, you just wait for 2nd contracts.

[DBoys]

Too many - both players and teams - like this setup (where the UNPROVEN, UNTESTED, RISKY-VALUE rookies don't get overpaid at the expense of the rest of the league). And yes, that includes players. The more the rookies make, the less the other players make - it's a fixed bucket of money being split among the players.

So, not likely to change. Instead, the system will continue to make new players pay their dues so to speak using this entrance setup (rookie scale salary), and prove their worth for a few years, before they can fully benefit from the massive finances that the league has created and shares with its players.

[Richfield]

DBoys you make a great point. If there are any changes to this system they don't need to be major. I'm all for guys getting paid for being the best in the world at what they do.

Perhaps a shift of the scale so it's not better to go 33rd than 29th. That and perhaps the change could make sense is an incentive based bonus when it's clear the player is more than pulling their weight for their new team. Maybe set it high, like making the allstar game. I'd choose allstar game because there'd be too much potential for problems if it were set at "starter" or some amount of points per game, etc which would alter player behavior or cause media drama. But in obvious cases, when the guy is an allstar for instance (those guys are cash cows), I feel like those guys might have earned more than the average MLE guy. Health isn't guaranteed, I don't like seeing those obvious guys go underpaid a full 4 years in this league, especially after making the NCAA and ESPN millions for however long, even if just for a year. Somebody's getting pretty rich off those select few, and it's not usually the player.

I guess shoe contracts are nice consolation, but those shouldn't be viewed as a substitute, they earn that money too.